Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I worked in Corporate Finance of a Fortune 500 Pharm. over 40 years ago while in my 20's. Do they really care about YOU and YOUR health? ROFL Do you believe in the Tooth Fairy too? They only care about their bottom line, profits, and how to INCREASE Sales. Ever hear about Government Grants for Research? Let government give me $$$$ for research which means I won't have to pay for it, and ultimately will created new "products" which will created more SALES, and profits. When only ONE Pharm. has the market for a product (EVERYTHING is a product), there will be no competition and you can charge whatever because no other corporation can undercut your product sales.
It is all just like any other business.
What you say is true, but I'm always struck that it's some kind of revelation to people that drug companies exist for creating profit. I don't expect GM to sell me a car for $10,000 out of pity, why would you expect a drug company to lower it's price out of compassion?
Aside from the fact that this Shkreli guy is a scumbag, the reason pharma (and other medical) companies are able to charge such high prices is because the consumers have been largely deprived of their free-market role as price controllers. Most costs are picked up by insurance companies or the government (I believe I've read that 2/3rd of all medical bills are paid for by the federal government). If all consumers had to pay the full cost of their medicine out of their pocket, the prices would drop dramatically. Now, I realize that this is not completly possible, especially for life-saving drugs and operations, but if it could be gradually built back into the system, prices would fall.
And the proof of this is elective procedures not covered by insurance, medicaid, etc. Their prices are kept affordable.
Really? What consumer can pay $250.00 per month for one med? And how many meds. are made by more than one drug company?
I worked in Corporate Finance of a Fortune 500 Pharm. over 40 years ago while in my 20's. Do they really care about YOU and YOUR health? ROFL Do you believe in the Tooth Fairy too? They only care about their bottom line, profits, and how to INCREASE Sales. Ever hear about Government Grants for Research? Let government give me $$$$ for research which means I won't have to pay for it, and ultimately will created new "products" which will created more SALES, and profits. When only ONE Pharm. has the market for a product (EVERYTHING is a product), there will be no competition and you can charge whatever because no other corporation can undercut your product sales.
It is all just like any other business.
And one day a family member will developed an illness that requires medication that cost 10-15k a month. I hope you never go through that.
We are still in our infancy and behave just like animals in the wild.
And one day a family member will developed an illness that requires medication that cost 10-15k a month. I hope you never go through that.
We are still in our infancy and behave just like animals in the wild.
Some of us are like babies who don't understand how things work in the real world.
Like I said many times before, a lot of people would rather have everybody including themselves suffer and die than allowing a few to make some money. Somehow they also claim that is morally superior, which I can't agree.
Profit or greed is the driving machine behind virtually all human advancements. It would be hard to find one that's not driven by greed. Without money to be made, there would be no investment and no new development - a lot more people will die because of that. Look at how we regulate the organ "market". Since everybody gets a "fair" chance to organ donation and there's no profit to be made, many many people die because of lack of organs. How is allowing people to die acceptable?
I would not have any issue even if my own medicines would cost 10-15K a month and I'd die because I can't afford. Hell even my current medicines aren't something I can afford - I am sure my life expectancy has shortened because of that.
I'd say, let people get rich and make money. Yes, I may suffer but in the long run and in the grand scheme of things, we as a species will be better off.
What you say is true, but I'm always struck that it's some kind of revelation to people that drug companies exist for creating profit. I don't expect GM to sell me a car for $10,000 out of pity, why would you expect a drug company to lower it's price out of compassion?
You are watching a movie and a little baby girl is dying because she needs a very unique medication to survive.
Ted Cruz says to the girl, "sorry kid, but if you do not have the 10k you will die. Do not take it personally, it is just business."
Then Bernie Sanders enters the scene clobbers Ted Cruz, steals the medication, and saves the little girl.
Questions for you:
Who is the good guy in the movie? Who is the bad guy?
Some of us are like babies who don't understand how things work in the real world.
You can say that again!
Quote:
Profit or greed is the driving machine behind virtually all human advancements. It would be hard to find one that's not driven by greed. Without money to be made, there would be no investment and no new development - a lot more people will die because of that.
It is nice of you to bring evolution into the discussion. Within the context of evolution you are correct. Greed probably plays a role in the concept of survival of the fittest. IN the same manner a voracious appetite perhaps created better hunters in the "hunter and gatherer" era before agriculture was developed.
This is indeed a very animalistic instinct that helps survival and even cockroaches have it as they scamper for cover when the lights are turned on. Do you ever consider the idea that we may evolve beyond that point? Do you ever analyze history? Do you see a progression towards a more civilized world? IN the old days there was no medical treatment, the weak were doomed to die. But, along the way society develop the idea that we help each other. Besides the greed gene we also have a gene that seems to encourage the idea of helping one another. And this gene must be advantageous and powerful because it is quite common in advanced societies and uncommon in less advanced barbaric societies.
Quote:
How is allowing people to die acceptable?
Dude, everybody needs to die. Imagine a world where no one dies.
Quote:
I would not have any issue even if my own medicines would cost 10-15K a month and I'd die because I can't afford. Hell even my current medicines aren't something I can afford - I am sure my life expectancy has shortened because of that.
I realize you long for a more primitive society where there is no compassion for others, but your point of view is is becoming less common. Most highly civilized societies have programs in place to help others. European countries are older than us and hence tend to be more prone to the concept of helping others.
Quote:
I'd say, let people get rich and make money. Yes, I may suffer but in the long run and in the grand scheme of things, we as a species will be better off.
No, you should not suffer if you lived in a country filled with billionaires. I rather live surrounded by affluent people than poor people. Anyone that makes money the right way is OK with me. But, you seem to support making money with crony capitalism or worse-------------doing it in a pragmatic manner as you propose.
You are watching a movie and a little baby girl is dying because she needs a very unique medication to survive.
Ted Cruz says to the girl, "sorry kid, but if you do not have the 10k you will die. Do not take it personally, it is just business."
Then Bernie Sanders enters the scene clobbers Ted Cruz, steals the medication, and saves the little girl.
Questions for you:
Who is the good guy in the movie? Who is the bad guy?
Bernie Sanders is the bad guy without doubt.
The real world result should be:
Bernie steals from the drug company to save people. Drug company posts huge loss due to the theft and goes bankrupt. Developing and producing new medicine is no longer profitable because Bernie would just steal them. No new drug is being developed anymore and people die off due to many different diseases.
On the other hand, many clueless people cheer at Bernie's theft and drug company's bankruptcy while conveniently overlook now people are dying because of no more development in new medicines.
It is nice of you to bring evolution into the discussion. Within the context of evolution you are correct. Greed probably plays a role in the concept of survival of the fittest. IN the same manner a voracious appetite perhaps created better hunters in the "hunter and gatherer" era before agriculture was developed.
This is indeed a very animalistic instinct that helps survival and even cockroaches have it as they scamper for cover when the lights are turned on. Do you ever consider the idea that we may evolve beyond that point? Do you ever analyze history? Do you see a progression towards a more civilized world? IN the old days there was no medical treatment, the weak were doomed to die. But, along the way society develop the idea that we help each other. Besides the greed gene we also have a gene that seems to encourage the idea of helping one another. And this gene must be advantageous and powerful because it is quite common in advanced societies and uncommon in less advanced barbaric societies.
Dude, everybody needs to die. Imagine a world where no one dies.
I realize you long for a more primitive society where there is no compassion for others, but your point of view is is becoming less common. Most highly civilized societies have programs in place to help others. European countries are older than us and hence tend to be more prone to the concept of helping others.
No, you should not suffer if you lived in a country filled with billionaires. I rather live surrounded by affluent people than poor people. Anyone that makes money the right way is OK with me. But, you seem to support making money with crony capitalism or worse-------------doing it in a pragmatic manner as you propose.
I have no issue with compassion; however, I have huge issue with you people asking others, drug companies, businesses, the rich, the taxpayers, to pay for your compassion.
Put money where your mouth is and pay for the drug to save the patient yourself!
If you believe in your notion, you should have no problem paying for other people's medicines.
Single payer. Government-run health care is ugly but it can't be worse than the robber barons we have now.
You wouldn't say that if you have experienced that first hand. I have been through two single payer systems - they can't even compare with what we have here.
If we are talking about reform in health care, we need to talk about tort reform. As simple as if we could cap the damage paid, we could have reduce the cost significantly.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
